Date: Sept 18, 1961
Weeks: 3
This is a pretty good 50s-style doo-wop song. The bass and drum lines are fun and full of energy, and keep the song's momentum from stalling. There are some string parts here and while I usually complain about those, they mostly work here. I don't care for the plunked violins that arrive like unwelcome punctuation in the middle of a flowing sentence, but the general string, piano, and backing chorus actually help the song. They make it feel bigger without making it feel clunkier or more ponderous. I really like the bridge, too, when the drum and bass stop just long enough to focus your attention and then hit you hard with some stings. That's good stuff.
Bobby Vee also has a pretty nice voice. There's a little too much vibratto in some of his longer sustained notes, but it never gets irritating. He's good at knowing when to punch up a note with some fanciness, and when to just sing it straight.
Lyrically, the song is just okay. This is a message to the singer's ex's new guy. He's imploring the new guy to treat her well. That's not so bad in itself. I kind of sympathize with the idea that he wants his ex to be happy, and that he wants this guy to treat her well. It's the relationship equivalent of the sports adage that it's better to be beaten by the eventual champion. For the most part, it's not too bad from the angle of treating the ex as some kind of property to be competed over or exchanged. Unfortunately, then comes the line "And if you should discover that you don't really love her, just send my baby back home to me." Dude, if the new guy doesn't work out, you don't automatically get to take her back. Your relationship failed for some reason. Wish her happiness and then move on. It's better for both of you.
My verdict: Like it. It's a jaunty little tune, and I approve of that.
I get the impression he thinks the reason their relationship failed was because of this new guy, so I can see why he has the sentiment that he could get her back if this new one fails. I don't agree, but I get it.
ReplyDeleteHe does use that diminishing "little girl" thing in reference to her, though. That seems to have been the 50s-60s equivalent of the current term "young girl" to refer 16-20 year olds.